Suspicious 1766 Mexico 8 Reales

Hey gang!

I just wanted to post this piece. A friend of mine owns it and is thinking of selling it to me. Something in my gut is saying to check this one out. I know there are a lot of guys here that know a lot more then I about these. It's only .1 gram off in weight and is definitely made of silver. This coin is a good friend of mines and I can attest it has been in a collection for over 30 years.

Thoughts?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What about it causes you concern? These have been faked forever, but not well. Chinese counterfeits of these were usually pot metal until the last decade. Are you worried about a Lebanese forgery? I do not recall if these issues were part of that problem from the 70's.

The florins and the columns look good, which are two of the areas I focus on when looking at these, (I may be the only one who does, so please do not take as a diagnostic, I just tend to pick out a certain area on a coin to focus on).

Chris

 

Just something about it... I can't quite put my finger on it... Maybe I'm just being cautious.

 

I like it.

 

I do not question your being cautious. These have been faked for far longer than either of us have been around. I am cautious when I buy these as well, (I own a few). The random details on this coin I concentrate on look good, and if its a fake its either a very well done struck fake, or an exceptional cast.

My vote is, like Coinman, that it is good. If an expert has a different take I would love to hear it, as I could use some further diagnostics for these coins.

Chris

 

That's one sharp looking pillar dollar. Better than those in my possession. Wouldn't mind adding it to my limited holdings.

It looks to be correct [genuine]. Artwork is as should be, lettering is right and assayer's initials [M over F] are correct for the period. Assayer initials of M over M are also seen for the same period, Mexico City mint. This is proper and correct, also.

It's silver, it's history, eye appeal is high, and there is pride [value] in ownership. If the price is manageable for you and you don't anticipate developing "buyer regret", owning this beautiful coin is a worthy consideration.

 

I was asking about a similar coin a while ago in this thread, http://www.cointalk.com/t136204/. I was referred to someone on another site that is a real expert on these, and he said they were faked quite a lot in China in the late 1800's. He said he couldn't be sure, but mine might have been one of those fakes. He also said that the fakes were so good in most instances that experts have a hard time telling them apart. Mine was also definitely silver.

 

But was the weight correct? Yes, they were faked extensively, (from my readings, I believe it is Kahn), but those fakes back then weren't to fool collectors but to fool the money changers. This coin was used extensively in China, and readily accepted. The counterfeiters knew this, and made pretty good quality stamped fakes but of wrong weight, as this lack of silver was their profit.

Btw, a little off topic, but Kahn also covered why the low denomination silver coins today are so common. I guess all of the mints operated independently, and were allowed to cheat on metal composition on coins below crown size. Therefor, they all overproduced small denomination silver for the profit. Its kind of like legal counterfeiting. Anyway, since the mints were not legally allowed to make extra profit from crown sized coins, they produced few, which is why coins like this Mexican one were imported even though the Chinese had many mints in operation in the 1880's on.

I do not believe the .1 gram that LD's coin is off would qualify for these old style chinese fakes. The difference in fineness was larger than that if I recall correctly. I have seen some of these, and they appear dull and lifeless compared to LD's example.

I am still voting his is good, but they were very good points goldmemember.

Chris

 

Hello Matt,

I know you have inspected the edge so it must look genuine to you.
It looks good to me & I only say that after you have weighted it to be within .1 gram. The fields look a little uneven but that is how they all look.

It looks like a job for the original ANA service where they would authenticate & maybe grade each side of the coin & supply you with a photo certificate. Sorry to say, today it should probably be sent to either Newport Beach or Sarasota for peace-of-mind encapsulation.

 

I also have to agree that the gram differential is an inconsequential point in determining authenticity. Based upon what I can determine from the photo's, I'll stand with my previous comment, " I like it " and call it genuine.

 

Whether it has been in a collection for 30 years or the last 200 really has no bearing on authenticity. I've heard stories of Chinese families having ancient knife money in their possession as heirlooms for hundreds of years passing them from generation to generation only to find out that they are contemporary counterfeits (which doesn't change the fact that they're family heirlooms but still).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_money

 

My statement was more meant to rule out modern fakes.

 

I've compared your coin to a similar one (also dated 1766) shown in P. 86 of F. Gilboys book. Gilboy was the authority on spanish colonial pillar coinage. As far as I can tell the style of your coin - placement of the devices and style of the lettering is correct. Gilboy rates the rarity of the 1766 Mexico city coin as C (common) in a scale going from C - R5.

Concerning weights: Gilboy states the 8 reales coin had a legal weight of 27.0642 grammes +/- 0.1996.
He also established the average weight of specimens in VF condition (slightly worn) and found it to be 27.070 grammes for Mexico City mint coins.

If you coin is within these tolerances, and coupled with our observations that the coin looks to be genuine from appearance, then I would also agree your coin is genuine.

 

Notice the D in D.G. on the crest side: it extends into the rim denticles. This is a common sign of a casting. I would be suspicious of it as well.

 

Yes, but considering the fact that its ever so slightly offcentered, (common for these and early US coins), that explains this fact. You are right it would be concerning otherwise, but I looked at that but did not comment on it since the strike accounts for it.

Chris

 

One thing to keep in mind is that the obv/rev design is not struck after the coin is edged, it is done simultaneously. For any part of any legends to be found on top of the rim denticles is a clear sign of a cast coin. On an off-center strike, the legends and denticles would both be off center.

 

Ok, I thought that these coins, along with US ones of the period, were edged first.

Either way, I have a few of these, quite a few later Mexican 8 reales, and lots of early US halves, and was just commenting from that. It appears to me most are somewhat askew as to the centering of the edging. This coin simply appears like examples I have, so did not think it was very indicative of casting.

I could be wrong of course.

Chris

 

The edging part is actually not even relevant, not sure why I put that in there =)
These early dollars are actually found with pre strike edging and post strike edging.
In reality, the edge has nothing to do with the denticles, which are part of the die design struck onto the coin. I'm definitely not an expert on Spanish colonial era counterfeits, but what I have learned from experts in this field is that design details that overlap the denticles are diagnostic for a casting. It makes sense when you think about it in the context of how coins were struck back then.
The good news is that this is likely an old counterfeit made from a hand-cut mold, rather than a modern one. Modern ones would be molded form a genuine existing coin, so you would not see such overlapping at the rim.

I would be interested in seeing any examples you have that also present such an overlapping, as they would be highly suspicious as well.

 

Great observations Numismat. If the coin in question is actually a counterfeit, I agree it was probably born in the 1960's, which would coincide with the owners purchase & possession history.